mmt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It mentions mutation actions (reserve, reset_reserved, load/save pre-config, threadx) but says nothing about whether reserved-region resets are destructive, whether pre-config files overwrite existing maps, what permissions or state are required, or what a dump returns. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with destructive-sounding operations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence naming the resource first, then the action set, with no filler. The density of slash-separated jargon and action lists makes it slightly hard to parse but every clause earns its place as an action list.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the action-to-parameter contract and the effects of mutations. It enumerates actions but leaves the agent to infer which parameters apply to which action and what happens on destructive operations, so it is incomplete for a multi-action tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has its own description and enums (kind, value, action). The description loosely maps concepts to parameters ('reserve SW/HW regions' → kind, 'dump free/AppReg/HRange/HRegion' → target), but does not give the action-to-parameter contract (e.g., regions required only for reserved, value only for threadx). The baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs (dump, reserve, reset, load/save, enable) tied to a named resource (Memory Mapping Tool), and it enumerates the concrete operations such as 'dump free/AppReg/HRange/HRegion' and 'reset reserved'. An agent can understand the tool's scope without opening the schema. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like pin_reserve or project options, so a 4 fits.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lists the actions the tool supports but does not say when to choose it over a sibling (e.g., pin_reserve vs reserving a region) or what the prerequisites are for each action. Usage is implied by the action verbs rather than guided. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.